@JP1 it's a really hard one that. The wording says that for all movement purposes he ignores it - so clearly piling in and charges, just treats the woods as there. But you're right that in theory he is still 3" away as sat on top of the tree. I've tended to play it as they completely ignore it - as they could just put the dragon on the side of the wood at a weird angle and it would technically be in. As far as I am aware, there's nothing in the rules that says they can't do that. Because of that, I tend to just play they can sit in the holes.

@Saul Goodman I've played on the stream a few times with my Sylvaneth, a couple of times not putting the trees in. I never put my models in the circles, and ask explain to my opponent the logic that the trees are still there. As was said ealier, exception to this is sometimes flying units. Otherwise, if you have seen players putting models in the gaps, that's incorrect.

@Kaylethia interesting to hear you've had success with them in a unit of 10. I've looked at it a lot and thought it would have legs, but never actually got round to putting it on the table. Has that been as part of Gnarlroot?
@Aezeal agree entirely with the Ancient and number of spells. 2 base just makes sense, and would make him a lot more viable outside of Gnarlroot.

I think Tree Revs are great. The pressure they can put on your opponents objectives and small wound models is brilliant and very useful. Kurnoth Hunters are still very good, as is Drycha against big hordes (such as DoK, Reapers or FEC...) I think Spites are a bit pants, and Wych's just don't seem worth the same points as Wraiths to me now, but almost everything else in the book has a role.
Again, 1 aspect of Sylvaneth is not the only thing that has done well. I've done well with lots of dryads, other players have done well with a collection of monsters, some have used multi drop armies, @Mike Burgess has used lists with lots of Hunters in before. I really think they are a very viable army at the moment, with 5/6 viable lists.

@Grimbok I talked about 2k because that's what I like to play. Just my own experience. You're being equally aggressive about that. I have little experience with 1k games, but fortunately it seems that @Kaylethia and @Ruhraffe have, both of whom seem to suggest that they can be quite doable at that level too.
I'm a bit confused by how you do want Sylvaneth to play? Not big monsters. Not Dryad spam. What do you want?

Disagree with that @Grimbok. Whilst Dryad spam is probably best, there are plenty of players who have gone 3-2 or 4-1 with min model, monster heavy lists. @Jimbo did it at Angelcore and someone at Blackout this year went 4-1 with a non battalion list, featuring Alarielle, Drycha and Durthu! So definitely doable in casual play. I also think it's pretty impossible to assume to know how GW 'wanted' the army to play. There are a lot of players playing Sylvaneth, many of whom picked it up early on (myself included), so I don't think that it struggles in that respect.
My thoughts in general, if we were to get a new tome:
- Fix stringing. Yes it makes Dryads good, but it is silly. Not particularly fun to play against, and just doesn't make sense at all.
- Make woods consistent in manner they're put down. All outside of 1".
That would be my only two things that I felt really needed dealing with. Think the tome is relatively balanced.
Having said all that, definitely not in the 'I fear a nerf' camp. Love what the recent new tomes have offered armies and very excited about the prospect of a new one for us! Alarielle might even get a natural bonus to cast in it!!

A good summary by @Ruhraffe there, @Gibs. The battalion set up are quite strong.
If you're looking for a rundown, this is me blowing my own trumpet, but I chatted trees with The Honest Wargamer a couple of months ago (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/327566892). Might be worth a listen! The @JustPlay-Ritchie podcast - Justsaying also tends to talk quite a bit about them, as Ritchie takes them to tourneys.